The problems with using complex analytical frameworks: lessons from Nepal

Relationships between donors, international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) and local partners are complex. They are usually defined by hierarchies and local partners have little control of the relationship. Rigid procedures such as logical frameworks establish forms of communication which exclude the voices of local communities. Openness, effective communication and greater personal commitment are needed from donors and their staff, for projects to bring about any real empowerment.

A chapter in a book from the Institute of Development Studies, UK examines interactions in Nepal between donors, local and international NGOs. The author presents inside information of two projects with contrasting relationships and power structures. The logical framework (or logframe) is a complex planning tool promoted by donors that aims to link project inputs to outputs to assess whether they achieve project objectives. In Nepal, as elsewhere, local NGOs have been pressured to adopt logframes in order to secure project funds.

The author notes that logframes:

• demand a rigid step-by-step communication and analysis style that reflects a western method of working
• differ from Nepali experience of an unpredictable world and from other types of communication that are more dependent on narratives or stories
• creates ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ because English is widely used while designing and using them: those without language skills are excluded and left powerless
• do not allow the space for informal conversations and spontaneous occurrences which Nepali staff and community members value and learn from
• can encourage initial team-building and cooperation with others who are involved in the project but then get taken over by INGOs: the subsequent practice of reporting back to INGOs further reinforces the hierarchy
• commonly are perceived to be rigid and hence new activities are not taken up or adapting to changing circumstances is considered difficult.

In a meeting in a remote area of Nepal, local people were keen to show hospitality to important donor agency visitors but had little understanding of the ‘output to purpose review’ for which they had come. The logframe language of development professionals was not translated to them. Only when the visitors’ travel plans fell through and they were obliged to stay longer did an opportunity arise to engage with local staff. When a bold expatriate switched to speaking in Nepali, the silence of hierarchy was broken and local staff was able to join the conversation.

International and local NGOs can complement each others’ skills to achieve positive change.  A local campaign for the rights of bonded labourers shows that this is possible. Central level lobbying by INGOs, in this case, was matched by the power of local voices. Courageous NGO staff did not obey local customs and beliefs which maintain the system of bonded labour. The emboldened local NGO was able to make greater demands for transparent local governance.

The author suggests it is important to ensure that:

• partnership processes do not force local NGOs to shift their focus from communities to offices of international NGOs and to reporting to donors
• evaluation reports actually say something new, not simply repackage already known information in the language and authority of consultants
• INGOs ask themselves whether mechanisms for encouraging the voices of the poor might not actually exclude the very people whom they claim to serve.

Organisations should initiate organisational procedures that facilitate openness and effective communication, along with positive personal commitment. This will open possibilities for more inclusive relationships among development practitioners.

Source(s):
‘Exploring power and relationships: a perspective from Nepal’ in ‘Inclusive aid: changing power and relationships in international development, edited by Leslie Groves and Rachel Hinton, Institute of Development Studies, pp 97-107, by Ruth Marsden, 2004

id21 Research Highlight: 26 April 2005

Further Information:
Ruth Marsden
Ruth Marsden
Institute for International Health and Development
Queen Margaret University College
Corstorphine Campus
Edinburgh EH12 8TS
U.K.

Tel: +44 (0)131 317 3493
Fax: +44 (0)131 317 3494
Contact the contributor: rmarsden@fhi.net, rmarsden@qmuc.ac.uk

Institute of Development Studies (IDS), UK

Other related links:
'Logframe alternatives: an actor-oriented approach to planning, monitoring and evaluation'

'Is the new professionalism sapping grassroots vigour?'

'Partnership and performance in the city: can urban NGOs raise their performance?'

'Power and accountability in NGO-community relationships: lessons from Thailand'